Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Gate-tunable Exchange Bias and Voltage-controlled Magnetization Switching in a van der Waals Ferromagnet

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A gate voltage shifts the exchange bias of an all–van der Waals Fe3GeTe2/O-FGT/hBN stack by up to 1.4 kOe and deterministically switches its magnetization.

desk verdict Strong candidate paper on gate-tunable exchange bias in a vdW ferromagnet; the core data look real, but the AFM nature of the oxide layer is asserted rather than demonstrated, and the statistics are thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18278 v1 pith:ZU6JDZPA submitted 2024-11-27 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Mayank Sharma , Garen Avedissian , Witold Skowroński , Junhyeon Jo , Andrey Chuvilin , Fèlix Casanova , Marco Gobbi , Luis E. Hueso This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords exchangebiasvanderWaalsmagnetFe3GeTe2gatevoltagecontroloxygenionmigrationmagnetizationswitchinghexagonalboronnitrideanomalousHalleffect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports that a gate voltage can control exchange bias in an all–van der Waals magnetic heterostructure and that this control can write the magnetization state deterministically. The device is a thin flake of the ferromagnet $\mathrm{Fe_3GeTe_2}$ whose surface has been naturally oxidized, forming an antiferromagnetic-oxide layer that pins the ferromagnet at the interface; an insulating hexagonal-boron-nitride layer on top serves as the gate dielectric. The measured exchange field reaches 1.4 kOe at 10 K, the blocking temperature is 150 K, and the exchange field shifts linearly with gate voltage in both positive and negative field-cooling directions. The authors attribute the gate response to field-driven migration of oxygen ions in the oxide, which changes the density and distribution of pinning sites, and they demonstrate that reversing the gate polarity at a fixed applied field switches the magnetization from one state to the other. If the mechanism holds, voltage-controlled spintronic devices based on van der Waals magnets become a practical target.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the O-FGT layer: a few-nanometre oxide formed by annealing $\mathrm{Fe_3GeTe_2}$ in air, which the paper treats as an antiferromagnet whose interfacial uncompensated spins pin the ferromagnet and produce exchange bias. Gate voltage redistributes oxygen ions in this oxide—negative voltage pulls them toward the FGT interface, strengthening the exchange coupling, while positive voltage moves them away, weakening it—and the ion drift speed estimated from a capacitive voltage-divider model and literature mobilities (about 0.4 Å/s) matches the roughly 60 s switching times observed. The hBN top layer plays a dual role: it stops further oxidation and acts as the gate dielectric, keeping leakage current below 70 pA so the effect cannot be thermal.

What would settle it

Probe the magnetic order of the O-FGT layer directly in a similarly prepared stack—for instance, by element-specific X-ray magnetic circular dichroism at the Fe $L_{2,3}$ edges or by polarized neutron reflectometry—and check whether the oxide shows antiferromagnetic order with a cooling-field-dependent uncompensated moment. If the oxide is found to be paramagnetic instead, or if no uncompensated interfacial spins track the field-cooling direction, the central attribution would collapse even though the loop shifts and the gate response remain unexplained.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that exchange bias in the layered ferromagnet $\mathrm{Fe_3GeTe_2}$ can be tuned bidirectionally by an electric field, and that this tuning provides deterministic voltage-driven magnetization switching. After field cooling the FGT/O-FGT/hBN stack, the anomalous Hall hysteresis loop is shifted by $H_{\mathrm{EB}}$ up to 1.4 kOe, with the sign set by the cooling-field direction; the shift remains up to a blocking temperature of 150 K, close to the Curie temperature of FGT. A gate voltage applied through the hBN dielectric changes the loop position linearly with voltage and in both field-cooling polarities: negative gate voltage increases the exchange bias, positive gate voltage decreases it. If the applied field is parked between the switching fields of the two states, changing or sweeping the gate voltage flips the magnetization, and control measurements rule out Joule heating and electrostatic doping as dominant causes. The paper interprets the slow, gate-polarity-dependent response as oxygen-ion migration in the naturally oxidized O-FGT layer, altering the number and distribution of interfacial pinning sites that produce the exchange bias.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the naturally oxidized surface layer of $\mathrm{Fe_3GeTe_2}$ is antiferromagnetic and that its interfacial spins are what pin the ferromagnet to produce the exchange bias; this magnetic order is taken from earlier work (ref. 24) rather than measured directly in the present devices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Exchange bias values up to 1.4 kOe with a 150 K blocking temperature make this oxide-pinned $\mathrm{Fe_3GeTe_2}$ system one of the strongest reported among layered exchange-bias heterostructures.
  • The linear, bidirectional dependence of $H_{\mathrm{EB}}$ on gate voltage gives a simple control law: any intermediate exchange field can be set by choosing the gate voltage.
  • Deterministic switching by gate-polarity reversal at a fixed applied field demonstrates a voltage-write operation that needs no current pulse and no magnetic-field pulse.
  • The low leakage current and slow response time indicate the effect is ionic rather than electrostatic, so the device operates as an ion-migration-controlled magnetic switch rather than as a charge-doped one.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the proposed mechanism is ion migration, the written magnetic state should persist after the gate voltage is removed; the paper does not test retention, and a retention/endurance measurement would be a direct next step.
  • The same stack could be used to measure the O-FGT antiferromagnetic order directly, for example by X-ray magnetic circular dichroism, which would independently test the central attribution.
  • The mechanism suggests that other oxidizable van der Waals ferromagnets, such as Fe3GaTe2, might show analogous gate-tunable exchange bias if a magnetic oxide forms at their surface.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports gate-tunable exchange bias in a perpendicularly magnetized all-van der Waals FGT/O-FGT/hBN heterostructure, with exchange bias fields up to 1.4 kOe, a blocking temperature of 150 K, and linear modulation of HEB with gate voltage Vg for both positive and negative field cooling. The authors also demonstrate deterministic voltage-controlled magnetization switching based on the EB modulation, and they attribute the effect to oxygen-ion migration in the naturally oxidized FGT layer, which alters interfacial exchange coupling between FGT and an antiferromagnetic O-FGT layer. The manuscript includes control experiments on devices without the oxide, low-leakage measurements, and timing controls, and the core observations appear internally consistent.

Significance. If the claims hold, this work would represent a significant advance in voltage control of magnetism in van der Waals heterostructures: the reported EB magnitude and blocking temperature are among the highest in layered systems, and the gate-controlled deterministic magnetization switching with sub-70 pA leakage is of practical interest for spintronic devices. The paper ships a useful set of controls (oxide-free device, leakage monitoring, electrostatic/heating controls) that strengthen the empirical case. However, the central mechanism interpretation depends on an unverified assumption about the magnetic order of the oxide layer, and the proposed oxygen-migration model is not quantitatively tested against the measured exchange-bias data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 and Conclusions (Fig. 2, Fig. S3, p. 6 and p. 14)] The paper asserts that the naturally oxidized O-FGT layer is antiferromagnetic and provides interfacial pinning, but this is not directly established. The TEM/EELS data (Fig. 1c, S1) show an oxygen-rich layer, and the control device without oxide (Fig. S3) shows no loop shift; neither observation demonstrates that the oxide's magnetic order is antiferromagnetic, rather than, for example, a magnetically hard ferromagnetic or spin-glass layer. The Conclusions section states that the oxide 'exhibits AFM properties' as if it were directly evidenced, while the only support cited is prior work (ref 24). Because the exchange-bias interpretation, the oxygen-migration mechanism, and the magnetization-switching concept all depend on this assumption, please either provide direct magnetic characterization of the O-FGT layer (e.g., element-specific XMCD/XMLD, a training-effect analysis, or magnetization measurements of a standalone oxide film) or explicitly temper the claims regarding the AFM nature of the oxide.
  2. [Section 2, Figure 3c and Supporting Figure S2c] The linear dependence of HEB on Vg, which is highlighted in the abstract and used to support bidirectional voltage control, is based on only three or four gate-voltage points per sample, with no error bars, no repeated field-cooling runs, and no uncertainty analysis for the extraction of HEB from the Hall loops. To substantiate the claimed linearity and to rule out a simple step-like or threshold behavior, please provide a statistical assessment (e.g., multiple loop extractions, additional gate voltages, and error bars) across the samples shown.
  3. [Quantitative model, Eqs. (1)–(3) (p. 13–14)] The section titled as a quantitative explanation of the EB modulation uses literature values for the permittivity ratio (εr = 0.19), the temperature-independent mobility (μ0 = 10-15 cm2V-1s-1), and the thermal prefactor (μth = 10-13 cm2V-1s-1) to estimate a voltage drop across the O-FGT layer and an oxygen-ion drift displacement of 2.4 nm in 60 s. These parameters are not constrained by the measured HEB values, and the resulting displacement is not compared to any direct probe of the oxygen distribution before and after gating. Moreover, the numerical field quoted on p. 13 appears inconsistent: with V_OFGT = 0.4 V and t_OFGT = 5 nm, the electric field is 0.8 MV/cm, not 4 MV/cm. The model therefore serves as a plausibility argument rather than a validated quantitative explanation. Please either test the model against direct measurements of ion migration or explicitly label the calculation as a rough consistency estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supporting Information, Figure S4 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'field' should be 'filed' in 'during the whole field sweep'.
  2. [Supporting Information, Figure S6 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'volage' should be 'voltage'.
  3. [References] Several reference entries (e.g., refs 12, 32, 35) list duplicated author names or repeated journal pages; while this is likely a formatting artifact, the final version should be checked against the original sources.
  4. [Section 2, Eq. (1) discussion] The electrostatic boundary condition D = εE is used at the hBN/O-FGT interface; it would be useful to state explicitly that this assumes no free charge at the interface and that the relative permittivity ratio is taken as frequency-independent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EB values are measured directly from loop shifts, and the quantitative model uses literature parameters rather than fitting the effect.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against the measured data. HEB is extracted directly from Hall-loop shifts via HEB = (Hc+ - Hc-)/2, and the gate-voltage dependence is reported as a measurement (Fig. 3c) rather than as the output of a fitted model. The quantitative model (Eqs. 1-3) estimates the voltage drop across O-FGT using the electrostatic boundary condition with literature values (epsilon_r = 0.19, t_OFGT = 5 nm, t_hBN = 18 nm, mu0 = 1e-15 cm2/Vs) and does not use the measured HEB values as fit parameters; the resulting ion-drift estimate (2.4 nm in 60 s) is an illustrative consistency check, not an output defined by the input. The only load-bearing assumption is that O-FGT is antiferromagnetic, which is inherited from the independent prior work (ref 24) rather than demonstrated here; while this is an evidentiary limitation and a correctness risk, it is not circular because it is not defined in terms of the present EB values, and ref 24 is an external, falsifiable result. The single self-citation (ref 26, FGT/CoPc) appears only in the introduction and comparison table and is not load-bearing. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. Therefore no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that O-FGT is antiferromagnetic (from prior work) and that oxygen ion migration explains the gate effect. The quantitative model uses four literature-derived constants, none fitted to the EB data, which keeps circularity low. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • epsilon_r (relative permittivity ratio hBN/O-FGT) = 0.19
    Used in Eq. 2 to compute voltage drop across O-FGT; taken from refs 40, 53, not fitted to the EB data. The derived ion velocity and distance depend on this value.
  • mu0 (temperature-independent oxygen ion mobility) = 1e-15 cm2 V-1 s-1
    Taken from ref 56 to estimate ion drift velocity; not fitted to the switching timescale.
  • muth (thermal mobility prefactor) = 1e-13 cm2 V-1 s-1
    Taken from ref 56; at 60 K the exponential term makes this negligible, so only mu0 is used.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The naturally formed oxide layer O-FGT is antiferromagnetic and provides the interfacial pinning responsible for exchange bias.
    The paper attributes EB to AFM O-FGT based on ref 24; no direct magnetic measurement of the oxide is presented in this work.
  • standard math The interface boundary condition D = epsilon E is continuous across the FGT/O-FGT and O-FGT/hBN interfaces (Eq. 1).
    This is standard electrostatics used to derive Eq. 2 for the voltage drop across O-FGT.
  • domain assumption Oxygen ion migration under the applied gate electric field is the operative mechanism for the gate-dependent EB modulation.
    Inferred by ruling out electrostatic doping and Joule heating; no direct imaging or spectroscopy of ion motion is provided.
  • domain assumption The mobility values and activation energy for oxygen migration in O-FGT can be approximated by values from oxide/ceramic literature (ref 56).
    Used in Eq. 3 to estimate drift velocity; validity at 60 K in a van der Waals oxide is not independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gate-tunable Exchange Bias and Voltage-controlled Magnetization Switching in a van der Waals Ferromagnet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZU6JDZPA

@misc{pith2026241118278,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gate-tunable Exchange Bias and Voltage-controlled Magnetization Switching in a van der Waals Ferromagnet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZU6JDZPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18278}
}
read the original abstract

The discovery of van der Waals magnets has established a new domain in the field of magnetism, opening novel pathways for the electrical control of magnetic properties. In this context, Fe3GeTe2 (FGT) emerges as an exemplary candidate owing to its intrinsic metallic properties, which facilitate the interplay of both charge and spin degrees of freedom. Here, the bidirectional voltage control of exchange bias (EB) effect in a perpendicularly magnetized all-van der Waals FGT/O-FGT/hBN heterostructure is demonstrated. The antiferromagnetic O-FGT layer is formed by naturally oxidizing the FGT surface. The observed EB magnitude reaches 1.4 kOe with a blocking temperature (150 K) reaching close to the Curie temperature of FGT. Both the exchange field and the blocking temperature values are among the highest in the context of layered materials. The EB modulation exhibits a linear dependence on the gate voltage and its polarity, observable in both positive and negative field cooling (FC) experiments. Additionally, gate voltage-controlled magnetization switching, highlighting the potential of FGT-based heterostructures is demonstrated in advanced spintronic devices. These findings display a methodology to modulate the magnetism of van der Waals magnets offering new avenues for the development of high-performance magnetic devices.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Blachowicz, A

    T. Blachowicz, A. Ehrmann, Coatings 2021, Vol. 11, Page 122 2021, 11, 122

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    F. Radu, H. Zabel, In Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, 2007, pp. 97–184

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    J. N. Nogue´s, I. K. Schuller, J Magn Magn Mater 1999, 192, 203

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    W. H. Meiklejohn, C. P. Bean, Physical Review 1957, 105, 904

    work page 1957

  5. [5]

    M. Xu, M. Li, P. Khanal, A. Habiboglu, B. Insana, Y. Xiong, T. Peterson, J. C. Myers, D. Ortega, H. Qu, C. L. Chien, W. Zhang, J. P. Wang, W. G. Wang, Phys Rev Lett 2020, 124, 187701

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Ramesh, S

    R. Ramesh, S. Manipatruni, I. Young, MRS Bull 2019, 44, 288

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    N. A. Spaldin, R. Ramesh, Nature Materials 2019 18:3 2019, 18, 203

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Ramesh, L

    R. Ramesh, L. W. Martin, Rivista del Nuovo Cimento 2021, 44, 251

    work page 2021

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Ramesh, S

    R. Ramesh, S. Manipatruni, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 2021, 477

    2021

  2. [10]

    S. Sin, S. Oh, Scientific Reports 2023 13:1 2023, 13, 1

    2023

  3. [11]

    Hirai, T

    T. Hirai, T. Koyama, D. Chiba, Phys Rev B 2020, 101

    2020

  4. [12]

    Y. Wang, X. Zhou, C. Song, Y. Yan, S. Zhou, G. Wang, C. Chen, F. Zeng, F. Pan, Y. Wang, C. Song, Y. Yan, G. Wang, C. Chen, F. Zeng, F. Pan, X. Zhou, S. Zhou, Advanced Materials 2015, 27, 3196

    2015

  5. [13]

    Echtenkamp, C

    W. Echtenkamp, C. Binek, Phys Rev Lett 2013, 111, 187204

    2013

  6. [14]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Clark, E. Navarro-Moratalla, D. R. Klein, R. Cheng, K. L. Seyler, Di. Zhong, E. Schmidgall, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, W. Yao, D. Xiao, P. Jarillo-Herrero, X. Xu, Nature 2017, 546, 270

    2017

  7. [15]

    Zhang, F

    G. Zhang, F. Guo, H. Wu, X. Wen, L. Yang, W. Jin, W. Zhang, H. Chang, Nature Communications 2022 13:1 2022, 13, 1

    2022

  8. [16]

    Y. Deng, Y. Yu, Y. Song, J. Zhang, N. Z. Wang, Z. Sun, Y. Yi, Y. Z. Wu, S. Wu, J. Zhu, J. Wang, X. H. Chen, Y. Zhang, Nature 2018, 563, 94

    2018

  9. [17]

    Zhang, Q

    X. Zhang, Q. Lu, W. Liu, W. Niu, J. Sun, J. Cook, M. Vaninger, P. F. Miceli, D. J. Singh, S. W. Lian, T. R. Chang, X. He, J. Du, L. He, R. Zhang, G. Bian, Y. Xu, Nature Communications 2021 12:1 2021, 12, 1

    2021

  10. [18]

    Klein, T

    J. Klein, T. Pham, J. D. Thomsen, J. B. Curtis, T. Denneulin, M. Lorke, M. Florian, A. Steinhoff, R. A. Wiscons, J. Luxa, Z. Sofer, F. Jahnke, P. Narang, F. M. Ross, Nature Communications 2022 13:1 2022, 13, 1

    2022

  11. [19]

    C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y. Xia, T. Cao, W. Bao, C. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Q. Qiu, R. J. Cava, S. G. Louie, J. Xia, X. Zhang, Nature 2017, 546, 265

    2017

  12. [20]

    Q. H. Wang, A. Bedoya-Pinto, M. Blei, A. H. Dismukes, A. Hamo, S. Jenkins, M. Koperski, Y. Liu, Q.-C. Sun, E. J. Telford, H. H. Kim, M. Augustin, U. Vool, J.-X. Yin, L. H. Li, A. Falin, C. R. Dean, F. Casanova, R. F. L. Evans, M. Chshiev, A. Mishchenko, C. Petrovic, R. He, L. ...

    2022

  13. [21]

    C. Tan, J. Lee, S. G. Jung, T. Park, S. Albarakati, J. Partridge, M. R. Field, D. G. McCulloch, L. Wang, C. Lee, Nature Communications 2018 9:1 2018, 9, 1

    2018

  14. [22]

    K. Kim, J. Seo, E. Lee, K. T. Ko, B. S. Kim, B. G. Jang, J. M. Ok, J. Lee, Y. J. Jo, W. Kang, J. H. Shim, C. Kim, H. W. Yeom, B. Il Min, B. J. Yang, J. S. Kim, Nature Materials 2018 17:9 2018, 17, 794

    2018

  15. [23]

    M.-H. Phan, V. Kalappattil, V. O. Jimenez, Y. Thi Hai Pham, N. W. Y. A. Y. Mudiyanselage, D. Detellem, C.-M. Hung, A. Chanda, T. Eggers, J Alloys Compd 2023, 937, 168375

    2023

  16. [24]

    H. K. Gweon, S. Y. Lee, H. Y. Kwon, J. Jeong, H. J. Chang, K. W. Kim, Z. Q. Qiu, H. Ryu, C. Jang, J. W. Choi, Nano Lett 2021, 21, 1672

    2021

  17. [25]

    C. Liu, H. Zhang, S. Zhang, D. Hou, Y. Liu, H. Wu, Z. Jiang, H. X. Wang, Z. Ma, X. Luo, X. Li, Y. Sun, X. Xu, Z. Zhang, Z. Sheng, Advanced Materials 2023, 35

    2023

  18. [26]

    J. Jo, F. Calavalle, B. Martín-García, D. Tezze, F. Casanova, A. Chuvilin, L. E. Hueso, M. Gobbi, Advanced Materials 2022, 34

    2022

  19. [27]

    Q. Wu, Y. Zhang, Z. Cui, P. Liu, B. Xiang, Z. Li, Z. Fu, Y. Lu, Adv Funct Mater 2023, 33

    2023

  20. [28]

    C. Wang, J. Wang, W. Q. Xie, G. Zhang, H. Wu, J. Zhou, X. Zhu, W. Ning, G. Wang, C. Tan, L. Wang, H. Du, Y. J. Zhao, H. Chang, G. Zheng, W. T. Geng, M. Tian, Phys Rev B 2023, 107, L140409

    2023

  21. [29]

    Zheng, W

    G. Zheng, W. Q. Xie, S. Albarakati, M. Algarni, C. Tan, Y. Wang, J. Peng, J. Partridge, L. Farrar, J. Yi, Y. Xiong, M. Tian, Y. J. Zhao, L. Wang, Phys Rev Lett 2020, 125

    2020

  22. [30]

    H. Dai, H. Cheng, M. Cai, Q. Hao, Y. Xing, H. Chen, X. Chen, X. Wang, J. B. Han, ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2021, 13, 24314

    2021

  23. [31]

    R. Zhu, W. Zhang, W. Shen, P. K. J. Wong, Q. Wang, Q. Liang, Z. Tian, Y. Zhai, C. W. Qiu, A. T. S. Wee, Nano Lett 2020, 20, 5030

    2020

  24. [32]

    Zhang, X

    L. Zhang, X. Huang, H. Dai, M. Wang, H. Cheng, L. Tong, Z. Li, X. Han, X. Wang, L. Ye, J. Han, L. M. Zhang, H. Dai, M. Wang, H. Cheng, X. Han, J. Han, X. Y. Huang, L. Tong, Z. L. Li Ye, X. Wang, Advanced Materials 2020, 32, 2002032

    2020

  25. [33]

    Zhang, Y

    T. Zhang, Y. Zhang, M. Huang, B. Li, Y. Sun, Z. Qu, X. Duan, C. Jiang, S. Yang, Advanced Science 2022, 9, 2105483

    2022

  26. [34]

    G. Hu, Y. Zhu, J. Xiang, T.-Y. Yang, M. Huang, Z. Wang, Z. Wang, P. Liu, Y. Zhang, C. Feng, D. Hou, W. Zhu, M. Gu, C.-H. Hsu, F.-C. Chuang, Y. Lu, B. Xiang, Y.-L. Chueh, ACS Nano 2020, 14, 12037

    2020

  27. [35]

    Zhang, H

    Y. Zhang, H. Xu, C. Yi, X. Wang, Y. Huang, J. Tang, J. Jiang, C. He, M. Zhao, T. Ma, J. Dong, C. Guo, J. Feng, C. Wan, H. Wei, H. Du, Y. Shi, G. Yu, G. Zhang, X. Han, Appl Phys Lett 2021, 118, 262406

    2021

  28. [36]

    Huang, L

    X. Huang, L. Zhang, L. Tong, Z. Li, Z. Peng, R. Lin, W. Shi, K.-H. Xue, H. Dai, H. Cheng, D. de Camargo Branco, J. Xu, J. Han, G. J. Cheng, X. Miao, L. Ye, Nat Commun 2023, 14, 2190

    2023

  29. [37]

    T. M. J. Cham, R. J. Dorrian, X. S. Zhang, A. H. Dismukes, D. G. Chica, A. F. May, X. Roy, D. A. Muller, D. C. Ralph, Y. K. Luo, Advanced Materials 2024, 36, 2305739

    2024

  30. [38]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Clark, D. R. Klein, D. MacNeill, E. Navarro-Moratalla, K. L. Seyler, N. Wilson, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, D. Xiao, W. Yao, P. Jarillo-Herrero, X. Xu, Nature Nanotech 2018 13:7 2018, 13, 544

    2018

  31. [39]

    Jiang, J

    S. Jiang, J. Shan, K. F. Mak, Nature Mater 2018 17:5 2018, 17, 406

    2018

  32. [40]

    Laturia, M

    A. Laturia, M. L. Van de Put, W. G. Vandenberghe, NPJ 2D Mater Appl 2018, 2, 6

    2018

  33. [41]

    Knobloch, Y

    T. Knobloch, Y. Y. Illarionov, F. Ducry, C. Schleich, S. Wachter, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, T. Mueller, M. Waltl, M. Lanza, M. I. Vexler, M. Luisier, T. Grasser, Nature Electronics 2021 4:2 2021, 4, 98

    2021

  34. [42]

    A. Paul, E. Kentzinger, U. Rücker, T. Brückel, Phys Rev B 2006, 73, 092410. 19

    2006

  35. [43]

    Y. J. Tang, B. Roos, T. Mewes, S. O. Demokritov, B. Hillebrands, Y. J. Wang, Appl Phys Lett 1999, 75, 707

    1999

  36. [44]

    J. Wang, W. N. Wang, X. Chen, H. W. Zhao, J. G. Zhao, W. Sh. Zhan, Appl Phys Lett 2000, 77, 2731

    2000

  37. [45]

    I. A. Verzhbitskiy, H. Kurebayashi, H. Cheng, J. Zhou, S. Khan, Y. P. Feng, G. Eda, Nat Electron 2020, 3, 460

    2020

  38. [46]

    Jiang, L

    S. Jiang, L. Li, Z. Wang, K. F. Mak, J. Shan, Nat Nanotechnol 2018, 13, 549

    2018

  39. [47]

    Y. Wu, D. Li, C. L. Wu, H. Y. Hwang, Y. Cui, Nature Reviews Materials 2022 8:1 2022, 8, 41

    2022

  40. [48]

    X. Zhou, Y. Yan, M. Jiang, B. Cui, F. Pan, C. Song, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2016, 120, 1633

    2016

  41. [49]

    C. Bi, Y. Liu, T. Newhouse-Illige, M. Xu, M. Rosales, J. W. Freeland, O. Mryasov, S. Zhang, S. G. E. te Velthuis, W. G. Wang, Phys Rev Lett 2014, 113, 267202

    2014

  42. [50]

    Bauer, L

    U. Bauer, L. Yao, A. J. Tan, P. Agrawal, S. Emori, H. L. Tuller, S. Van Dijken, G. S. D. Beach, Nature Materials 2014 14:2 2014, 14, 174

    2014

  43. [51]

    X. Li, K. Qi, M. Sun, Q. Huang, Z. Xu, W. Wang, X. Bai, Appl Phys Lett 2015, 107, 211902

    2015

  44. [52]

    S. Roy, M. R. Fitzsimmons, S. Park, M. Dorn, O. Petracic, I. V. Roshchin, Z.-P. Li, X. Batlle, R. Morales, A. Misra, X. Zhang, K. Chesnel, J. B. Kortright, S. K. Sinha, I. K. Schuller, Phys Rev Lett 2005, 95, 047201

    2005

  45. [53]

    Qayoom, K

    M. Qayoom, K. A. Shah, A. H. Pandit, A. Firdous, G. N. Dar, J Electroceram 2020, 45, 7

    2020

  46. [54]

    C. S. Kim, K. W. Park, D. Kalaev, C. Nicollet, H. L. Tuller, J Mater Chem A Mater 2022, 10, 15402

    2022

  47. [55]

    Kumagai, N

    Y. Kumagai, N. Tsunoda, A. Takahashi, F. Oba, Phys Rev Mater 2021, 5, 123803

    2021

  48. [56]

    W. D. KINGERY, D. C. HILL, R. P. NELSON, Journal of the American Ceramic Society 1960, 43, 473. 20 Supporting Information Gate-tunable Exchange Bias and Voltage-controlled Magnetization Switching in a van der Waals Ferromagnet Mayank Sharma, Garen Avedissian, Witold Skowroński...

    1960

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.